get_datasets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral constraint that certain standard values have no backing endpoint and will not work. It does not discuss response size/pagination or what slimmed-vs-raw output implies operationally, leaving some context to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short lines with zero filler: purpose first, then the critical exclusion, then a call example. Every sentence earns its place and the constraint is front-loaded before the example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, applicability, alternative routing, and a usage example. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at what a dataset entry contains, which is minor given how the sibling get_dataset/get_dataset_variables tools split that concern.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented, including version formats ('3-4'/'3.4'/'latest') and the raw toggle. The description's example demonstrates a valid standard/version pairing but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取指定标准下的所有数据集列表') scoped by standard, and explicitly separates itself from get_datastructures for the adam/adamig family. An agent can distinguish it from the ~20 sibling get_* tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-NOT-to-use rule ('仅适用于 SDTM/SEND/CDASH 系列；adam / adamig 没有 datasets 端点，请改用 get_datastructures'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The concrete example anchors the calling pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.